Genesis Chapter 6:4
This column is based on questions frequently asked on the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. In this issue of the Newsletter, Hank Hanegraaff, CRI President and host of the Bible Answer Man, addresses the question: "Did fallen angels (demons) have sexual relations with the daughters of men in Genesis 6:4?"
Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible. As with any difficult section of Scripture, it has been open to a wide range of interpretations. The two most prevalent interpretations are: (1) Women were having sexual relations with demonic beings (literally "sons of God," a term sometimes used for angels), and producing offspring who were part human, part demon. These mutants were said to be Nephilim, or heroes of old. (2) The "sons of God" were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to their godly heritage, they were "unequally yoked" with the ungodly line of Cain. Thus, civilization sank into depravity and subsequently was destroyed by the Flood.1
It is my conviction that those who consistently hold to a biblical world view must reject the concept that women and demons can engage in actual, physical sexual intercourse. I reject this interjection of pagan superstition into Scripture for the following reasons.
First, demons are nonsexual beings. As a unique category of non-material beings, they are incapable of having sexual relationships with corporeal sexual beings, producing biological offspring. As Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter put it, "Let us be frank and explicit. The angels are bodiless, purely spiritual beings, and sexless. Being bodiless and sexless means that they are without sex organs, and that they are therefore absolutely incapable of sensuous experiences or sexual processes; nor are they capable of procreation or reproduction in any way whatever."2
Nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to fallen angels being able to produce human bodies. Furthermore, nowhere does Scripture affirm that the bodies God's angels take on are capable of sexual reproduction. To say that demons can create real bodies with DNA and fertile sperm to say that demons have creative power, which is an exclusively divine prerogative. To create is the prerogative of the Creator, not of any creature, angelic or human. While a biblical world view would allow for fallen angels to possess human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon possessed person can produce offspring that are part demon, part human.
Second, if demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we have no assurance that they cannot do so in modern times. If demons do, in fact, have the capability of creating real bodies with real sperm, we have no assurance that the people we encounter every day are fully human.
Third, it is interesting to note that in the account of an event which occurred 800 years after the Flood, the term Nephilim was used to describe the descendants of Anak (Num. 13:33). While proponents of the mutant theory sometimes point to the phrase "and also afterward" (Gen. 6:4) to try to deal with this problem, they only succeed in transferring the same problem to another passage. Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 poses a special difficulty for the mutant theory. Moses authored both Genesis and Numbers, yet Moses gave no indication that Nephilim means something different in Numbers than in Genesis. This entails either that not all mutants were destroyed in the Flood, in which case the Scripture is in error with respect to the extent of the judgment, or that mutants were produced again after the Flood, in which case we actually have scriptural precedent by which we might hypothesize that such mutants are being produced again today.
Fourth, it is worth noting that Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God's living creations were designed to reproduce "according to their own kinds." Mutants would have no place God's expressed creative purposes. Some have argued that angels may have been created originally with an inherent capacity to become human, but the Bible nowhere teaches this notion and Genesis 1 militates against it. Others have argued that because demon-humans had no place in God's expressed creative order, they would have conspired to contaminate the human race in order to thwart God's plan for humanity's redemption. Therefore, God brought the Flood for the purpose of restoring the purity of the human bloodline. But this presupposes that Satan is capable of usurping God's prerogative in creation, which is not possible as I have already pointed out.
Fifth, the scriptural perspective is that the Flood was solely a judgment on humanity, as opposed to a judgment on fallen angels or demon-humans.
Sixth, the mutant theory creates very serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of the demon-humans, and their relation to humanity's redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and no plan of redemption is offered to them in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. We have no biblical way for determining what category the demon-humans fit into- whether they are to be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might be among those for whom Christ died.
Seventh, no other verses in Scripture explicitly support the view that demons can have sexual relations with women. While advocates point to 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 to support this theory, a quick review of these passages demonstrates that they do not establish the position. Some readings of these passages may seem to be consistent with the mutant theory of Genesis 6:4, but they certainly do not necessitate the theory. Better interpretations of these passages in context reveal that these verses have nothing at all to do with fallen angels having sexual relations with humans.3
For these reasons I believe the better interpretation is that "sons of God" simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Dr. Gleason Archer explains,
What Genesis 6:1-2, 4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards. In other words, "sons of God" in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to God and loyal to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were "daughters of men" - that is, of the tradition and example of Cain.4
Critics of this view say that sometimes the Bible refers to angels as "sons of God;" therefore "sons of God" in this passage may refer to angels. Yet, that term is explicitly applied to good angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The only other references applying the term or a related term to angels are in Psalms 29:1 and 89:6-7. In all of these places the term appears to refer to angels who praise and glorify God. Archer notes, "The term 'sons of God' (bené elohim transliterated from Hebrew) is used in the Old Testament of either angels or men who are true believers, committed to the service of God."5
The use of the Hebrew term to refer to humans who love and worship God is well established in Scripture (see, for example, Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10). In fact, the topic of Deuteronomy 32 is the sinfulness of humans and God's judgment on their faithlessness, since they are "no longer" God's children.
Another objection is that the Nephilim are considered to be "giants." But, the Hebrew is more often and contextually translated "men of renown." The NlV Study Bible note for Genesis 6:4 says, "In men's eyes they were 'the heroes of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment."6 Even if the Hebrew could be translated "giants," there is no necessity of giving the Nephilim demonic paternity. While such concepts are common in Greek mythology, they are foreign to a Christian world view. For further information, consult Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and J. Sidlow Baxter's classic Studies in Problem Texts.
Hank Hanegraaff
NOTES 1. Two variations of this second view are that demons possessed ungodly people who married descendants of godly people, spiritually corrupting them and their offspring, or that the human offspring of unequally yoked parents gained their heroism through demonic power. 2. J. Sidlow Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 152. 3. See Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, A Commentary Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) for views on 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6. 4. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 80. 5. Ibid., 79. 6. The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 14.
